> It's nice that this happens to be your particular flavor of Christianity's theology.

I don't set theology, nor determine it. Theology is not decided by committee or by preference, but by revelation. Some parts of Christian theology are "convenient," as you may say, and some are not.

> Scientology also has theology.

Every religion has theology.

> What matters in a debate sub is whether you can show there is any real truth to what you believe.

I agree, but I also know that science and material evidence are not the only standards of knowledge and truth.

> How terribly convenient for you that this punishment of death happens to not actually be death the way we commonly think. I'm hoping that in the 1000+ pages of fine print there's a bit more information on what exactly the punishment is then?

Again, I don't set theology or determine it. It is revealed to us. That's why there's so much coherence to it. Is there more information in the Bible about this topic? Of course. We're conversing, but if you want to read books that give a thorough treatment of the subject of atonement, there are many good theological books available. This sub really isn't for discussion at that depth. I would invite you to do more genuine research to feed your knowledge on the subject.

> While that's a nice analogy, we haven't fully gotten into the circular logic many Christians accept. Let's see what you can tell us about this "non-death" and how that relates to the nature of Jesus, and then the circular illogic will start to take more shape.

I'm not sure I understand your comment here. Jesus actually died—that's the whole point. What do you mean "non-death"? In the sense that his soul/spirit didn't die, that's no big deal. No one's does. Death is a transition, not a cessation. What are you getting at?

> If the world is as your theology says, then it would seem your deity is more susceptible than you believe.

Then you misunderstand, again. God is not susceptible to weakness, sin, evil, or mistake. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

> Good to see there are limits to what your deity can do.

Of course there are. God can't be self-contradictory. He can't go against his own nature. He can't do what is logically absurd. He can't fail to do what he has promised. He cannot change the past. He cannot interfere with the freedom of man.

> I am biased toward attempting to discern whether or not claims are real truth before accepting unjustifiable claims with unfounded certainty. The best process I know of for ascertaining if something is true is to do a reality check on whatever it is. If there is nothing real about your claims, then there is no good reason to accept them as if they were really true.

Well said. So am I. I'm glad we agree on something.

> It's theological, not scientific. You wanted to know what Christians believe.

It's nice that this happens to be your particular flavor of Christianity's theology. Scientology also has theology. What matters in a debate sub is whether you can show there is any real truth to what you believe.

> The scapegoat was released into the wilderness. It's not punishment, but a symbol of removing the sins from the community. So there was nothing "not just or fair" about it.

The wilderness happened to be the desert, so still not all that just or fair. All the animal sacrifices? It would also be an interesting change to Christianity if Jesus had just been released into the wild after a symbolic ceremony... Just and fair are nowhere to be found when punishing innocents.

> The death of which the Bible speaks in not the perfectly natural physical death... Adam and Eve... lived for quite awhile longer.

How terribly convenient for you that this punishment of death happens to not actually be death the way we commonly think. I'm hoping that in the 1000+ pages of fine print there's a bit more information on what exactly the punishment is then?

> I would hope, arguing with Christians as you are, that you have some understanding of the doctrine of the trinity.

I have some idea what a variety of Christians think. Some that Jesus was still fully a deity, others that he was half and half, some that he was fully man and set his deity aside. I'm aware of the age old problem of personifying ideals and the need to have separate personifications of opposing ideals (hence pantheons with gods of war and gods of peace) and that "monotheism" apparently can't solve that problem any other way as well.

> Your accusation of human hacking betrays a lack of understanding. All people ... have struggled with the doctrine of the trinity. ... light is both a particle and a wave ... both have been proved, and yet they contradict each other. That doesn't mean it's human hacking.

While that's a nice analogy, we haven't fully gotten into the circular logic many Christians accept. Let's see what you can tell us about this "non-death" and how that relates to the nature of Jesus, and then the circular illogic will start to take more shape.

The other important difference between the assertions of your theology and the nature of light, is while we don't fully understand light, we're at least able to reality check our ideas about light to get a better understanding if there's any real truth to either notion of what light is. And that valid process for discernment will lead us to better understanding of the real truth about light in the future.

> In this case the definition would be "insusceptible to mistakes, wrong thinking, or wrongdoing." Because God is God, he is not susceptible. Because we are not God, we are inherently not insusceptible.

If the world is as your theology says, then it would seem your deity is more susceptible than you believe.

if the deity can be 3 people, why not more?

> Because He is what He is. You asking for an absurdity. The deity can't create more deity, because deity by theological definition is uncreated.

Good to see there are limits to what your deity can do. I never said he had to create them, perhaps he can partition himself into more personalities, since he's also timeless, I don't see any problems. But it would be terribly convenient for your deity to have limits that happily correspond with how you'd like to believe that deity behaved.

> "You make a lot of immense claims about unrealistic things for which you offer little but tall tales." Unfortunately this is your bias in coming to the conversation. You seem to want scientific evidence for theology, without which you shout "Tall tales!" But there's nothing circular about my reasoning.

I am biased toward attempting to discern whether or not claims are real truth before accepting unjustifiable claims with unfounded certainty.
The best process I know of for ascertaining if something is true is to do a reality check on whatever it is. If there is nothing real about your claims, then there is no good reason to accept them as if they were really true.

This has nothing to do with science, just common sense. If you tell me you had lunch with President Trump today, or that you could triple my money in a month, I wouldn't be likely to believe those claims either.

Since you are having a discussion with a Christian, and desire to know what the Bible teaches and what Christians believe on that basis, then the truth is not based in your opinions of the way you think things should be, but the way they are revealed to be.

> You draw from this two conclusions, which you do not explain: (1) that it makes you a "rebel" against God's truth, and (2) because of this, you must be destroyed. Yet neither of these conclusions follow from the premise.

Both of these teachings are Christian doctrine. The Bible uses a lot of different terms to talk about sin. Some focus on its causes, others on its nature, and still others on its consequences.

- Error
- Missing the mark
- irreligion
- transgression
- iniquity; lack of integrity
- rebellion
- treachery
- perversion
- abomination
- evil or badness
- trouble

So sin is definitely a rebellion against God's truth. William Stevens says, "Various definitions of sin have been set forth. One is that sin is non-conformity to the moral law of God. Yet sin goes much deeper than God’s law, for it goes back to our relationship with a personal God. Sin has been defined as rebellion against the will of God for one’s life. Yet this does not reveal whether sin is a state, an act, or a condition. Sin has been described as selfishness. Yet much more is involved in sin than is implied in the simple term selfishness. Sin has been described as an act, disposition, or state that is morally wrong. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t take into account one’s relation to God. It is more a definition of evil than of sin. Sin has been defined as a breach of relations between the sinner and God. Yet more is involved in sin that is connoted by this bare declaration."

Secondly, as far as "because of this you must be destroyed." Again, the Bible uses many terms;

- Death. Romans 5.12; 6.23
- Corruption. Gal. 6.7-8
- Perishing; destruction. John 3.16; 10.28; 17.12; Rom. 2.12; 14.15; 1 Cor. 8.11 et al.

In other words, it's tough to capture it all with a simple definition, but the two conclusions follow from the premise.

> God created human nature, including sin

According to the Bible, this is patently untrue. Gen. 1.31 says what God created was good. Sin, as I have already established, is a rebellion against God, disobedience, falling short, and perversion, etc.

> We're fulfilling our design.

Not at all. We have abandoned our God-given design for a path of our own making.

> This is rather disingenuous. God created reality. There is no difference between reality and God's wishes. Do you deny that God is omnipotent? Omniscient? It would seem like you would have to in order to hold this belief.

Not a bit. Since God is uncreated, the reality that is God and all that emanates from Him is essential in the system: uncreated, but part of the immutability of reality. I don't have to deny omnipotence or omniscience to claim A = A. God is what He is, uncreated, but having certain established and enduring attributes.

> No. According to Christian belief, there is nothing in the world that God did not create.

This is wrong as well. There is no biblical teaching that God created sin or evil.

> In legal terms, this is called "malice aforethought".

With your analogy and conclusion, you have ignored everything I told you in the previous post. God cannot create uncreated, and therefore "perfect," beings. Anything created is by definition not God and therefore susceptible to error, by necessity. Etc. Etc. I would ask that you read the previous post so I don't have to go through it all again.

> Well, I think we could agree that a vindictive sadist would be the wrong master. That's a fairly easy choice.

I agree. Then why have so many people chosen to abandon God, who loves them, to follow their own wayward path and submit themselves to the influence of vindictive sadists, both human and dark spiritual forces? And yet so many have. It's the wrong master. Choose God, the loving and righteous master.

> This is a wildly heterodox teaching. You're saying God doesn't create truth?

That's right, but it's not heterodox at all. Jesus said in John 14.6, "I am...the truth." Jesus is uncreated, therefore truth is uncreated. Truth is part of the necessary fabric of reality.

> He didn't create the world? Who did? God is not the Creator? I thought I was discussing these matters with a Christian.

Of course God created the world and the cosmos. In Christian theology, this is and obvious teaching.

> An omniscient being knows, outside of time, the outcome of very chain of events in the universe.
An omnipotent creator, therefore, knows the outcome of even one of his creations before-the-fact.
An omnipotent, omniscience creator, therefore, has full responsibility for every element of his creations.

It's the 3rd premise that doesn't follow. You are ignoring free will and the authentic capability of humans to make their own decisions, outside or or even against the will of God, and therefore it is humans, not God, who have responsibility for their decisions. Humans are free agents. God is omniscient, but knowledge is not causative. Only power is causative. And even though we call God "omnipotent," the Bible is clear that God is able to withhold or apply His power variously according to the situation, and that God doesn't use his power to determine every element of history or creation.

> God created the errors.

God didn't create the errors. He created, instead, a sublime creation that was, nevertheless, not God, and therefore subject to error. If I create an immaculate (perfect) cut glass goblet, it can be both perfect and breakable. It's because of the nature of glass that it is subject to damage, not the design of the creator who made it perfect. Because we are human, we are therefore not God, and hence, breakable.

> God made me with full knowledge that I would refuse. I was designed to do precisely what I am doing now.

This is incorrect theology also. If you want to discuss with a Christian, then you need to know what the Bible teaches, and it does not teach that you are determined by God with no will of your own. You were designed to be in relationship with God, but if you are doing something different than that, you have chosen that yourself and are responsible for your decision and course.

> I have no desire to be "freed" from my sins. Our sins are things we carry with us. We're shaped by our mistakes. We learn from them, accept responsibility for them, and do our best to move on. I don't want or need them to be taken away.

Then this is the only reason you are still in your sins, and don't blame God for them. As you said, you accept responsibility for them. Unfortunately, you are on a path that leads to destruction, and I beg you to change course and instead follow the God who loves you.

> Thanks for asking. Glad to have the opportunity to explain. Sin is not just what we do, it's who we are. We are not sinners only by behavior, but by nature. Though most of the sins you commit you may regard as small (and possibly they are, since I don't know what a great person you may be), what you are missing is that you have a sin nature that makes you a card-carrying rebel against God and his truth. This conversation could be evidence of that very fact. That's why total destruction is in the cards.

This doesn't answer the question at all. We agree that sin is part of human nature. You draw from this two conclusions, which you do not explain: (1) that it makes you a "rebel" against God's truth, and (2) because of this, you must be destroyed.
Yet neither of these conclusions follow from the premise. God created human nature, including sin, so one isn't really "rebelling" against anything. We're fulfilling our design.

Secondly, there's no explanation for why sin should result in total destruction. Most people's sins are pretty minor. Calling for their total destruction seems rather extreme.

> Again, it's not a matter of God's wishes, but of reality.

This is rather disingenuous. God created reality. There is no difference between reality and God's wishes. Do you deny that God is omnipotent? Omniscient? It would seem like you would have to in order to hold this belief.

> But he didn't create the cliff. Humans did. But you're right that God knew we would create it, who would fall off it and how, and that's why he issued warnings, created a safety net, and offers life as a free gift.

No. According to Christian belief, there is nothing in the world that God did not create.

God's behavior, as described, is insane. Imagine inventing a car that you knew was dangerous. Unlike most auto manufacturers, though, you have two special abilities: (1) you can build the perfect car, and (2) you can predict with perfect accuracy what will happen with each car.
In spite of this, you decide to build an imperfect car anyway, knowing it will kill people. You issue recalls, warnings, a buy-back program -- in a word, everything you can do to save as many lives as possible -- short of not building a defective car in the first place. And you do this knowing, in advance, that a certain number of people won't get the notices, won't heed your warnings, won't believe your buy-back program, etc. Yet you sadistically decide to keep the car as-is, with full knowledge of the suffering it will cause. In fact, your knowledge is so complete that you know, in perfect detail, how each of those drivers will die, how each particular component of your car failed them. From your point of view, with your perfect knowledge, each death was entirely unavoidable.

In legal terms, this is called "malice aforethought". If you have foreknowledge that an act (or the omission of an act) will kill someone, cause them great bodily harm, or will put human life at great risk, then you have a premeditated responsibility over the lives lost and harms done. Loss of life in such cases is sometimes called "depraved-heart murder". This would seem to be a very accurate description of God's disposition.

> We're all a slave to something. We have to decide who or what we will serve. Do we serve ourselves? Money and greed? Drugs? Time? our jobs? Our drive for success? Pride? Humanity? Nobility? God? Freedom is the opportunity to choose whom and for what you are enslaved. We always have a master. Freedom is choosing the right master.

Well, I think we could agree that a vindictive sadist would be the wrong master. That's a fairly easy choice.

> God doesn't have to create truth. It's the way things are. God didn't sit around thinking, "Let's see, what kind of God do I want to be. I better make a good list because I'll be held to it."

This is a wildly heterodox teaching. You're saying God doesn't create truth? He didn't create the world? Who did? God is not the Creator? I thought I was discussing these matters with a Christian.

> Oh my. There's nothing logically incompatible about these characteristics. But if you want to present your case, I'll be pleased to talk with you about it.

Sure.

1. An omniscient being knows, outside of time, the outcome of very chain of events in the universe.
2. An omnipotent creator, therefore, knows the outcome of even one of his creations before-the-fact.
3. An omnipotent, omniscience creator, therefore, has full responsibility for every element of his creations. Every sin belongs to him. Every defect of personality and temperament belongs to him. They belong to him and are his creation as much as the moon and Mount Everest are.
4. If you create a hazard, with full knowledge of its consequences, then any attempts to mitigate the hazard after-the-fact are morally imperfect, because the morally perfect decision would have been to not create the hazard in the first place. This is especially true if one knows with complete certainty that the mitigation efforts won't be fully successful. In fact, the means of mitigation were, in God's case, known to be defective themselves—one might even say they were designed to be defective, since he created them. In what possible way would he not be responsible?

>Again, a misunderstanding. God is uncreated, by definition. Therefore any created being is not God. Only God is insusceptible to mistake, therefore all created beings are susceptible to error. People were in danger, inevitably. God designed to protect them from it in the first place, and redeem them from it in the event of failure. That doesn't make him a psychopath.

God created the errors. If he created errors, he can't claim to be a rescuer, any more than a person could be both an arsonist and a fireman showing up at the scene without being called a lunatic.

> Fine. Make your choices, but don't blame God for your rebellion and refusal.

God made me with full knowledge that I would refuse. I was designed to do precisely what I am doing now.

> Why accept Jesus? Because you can be freed from your sins. You can have meaning, hope, and life. Your merry way is leading to destruction, despite that God is showing you mercy while you weigh your options.

I have no desire to be "freed" from my sins. Our sins are things we carry with us. We're shaped by our mistakes. We learn from them, accept responsibility for them, and do our best to move on. I don't want or need them to be taken away.

> All people sin. For most people, those sins are minor. Why would those sins "destroy" them?

Thanks for asking. Glad to have the opportunity to explain. Sin is not just what we do, it's who we are. We are not sinners only by behavior, but by nature. Though most of the sins you commit you may regard as small (and possibly they are, since I don't know what a great person you may be), what you are missing is that you have a sin nature that makes you a card-carrying rebel against God and his truth. This conversation could be evidence of that very fact. That's why total destruction is in the cards.

> So in the same breath you say he's not a megalomaniac, and simultaneously say that he created a world where every single person will be destroyed unless they obey his wishes, to the smallest detail. Tell me, what sort of being would create that type of world?

Again, it's not a matter of God's wishes, but of reality. Let's say you're in an airplane, and you're about to casually walk out the door. God says, "Don't walk out the door, you'll crash to the earth and die." How dare he say I will be destroyed if I don't obey his wishes!

> He created the cliff. He created it knowing precisely who would fall off it and how.

But he didn't create the cliff. Humans did. But you're right that God knew we would create it, who would fall off it and how, and that's why he issued warnings, created a safety net, and offers life as a free gift.

> Particularly if accepting this generous "offer" would further indebt me to someone else.

We're all a slave to something. We have to decide who or what we will serve. Do we serve ourselves? Money and greed? Drugs? Time? our jobs? Our drive for success? Pride? Humanity? Nobility? God? Freedom is the opportunity to choose whom and for what you are enslaved. We always have a master. Freedom is choosing the right master.

> "Facts" created solely and absolutely by God for this intended purpose.

God doesn't have to create truth. It's the way things are. God didn't sit around thinking, "Let's see, what kind of God do I want to be. I better make a good list because I'll be held to it."

> The Christian wants his God to be a redeemer and a rescuer, but he also wants his God to be all-powerful and all-knowing. These desires are incompatible.

Oh my. There's nothing logically incompatible about these characteristics. But if you want to present your case, I'll be pleased to talk with you about it.

> One wouldn't be considered a rescuer if one is also the knowing architect of the calamity putting people in danger.

Again, a misunderstanding. God is uncreated, by definition. Therefore any created being is not God. Only God is insusceptible to mistake, therefore all created beings are susceptible to error. People were in danger, inevitably. God designed to protect them from it in the first place, and redeem them from it in the event of failure. That doesn't make him a psychopath.

> Not very reassuring.

The only reassurance is finding salvation in Christ. That's where your only hope lies.

> One does not negotiate with terrorists.

Fine. Make your choices, but don't blame God for your rebellion and refusal.

> I'm referring to hell.

So am I. Hell is separation from the presence of God.

> Wait... so we can be "beneficiaries" of "general grace" without worshiping or obeying God? Why accept him or Jesus, then? Why not just go on our merry way?

Why accept Jesus? Because you can be freed from your sins. You can have meaning, hope, and life. Your merry way is leading to destruction, despite that God is showing you mercy while you weigh your options.

> This is a severe misunderstanding. It's not that God says, "I'll pay if you worship, and if you don't, I torture you for eternity." Instead, what the Bible teaches is that God knows that your sin is leading you in a path of total destruction, and only recognizing the truth will save you.

All people sin. For most people, those sins are minor. Why would those sins "destroy" them? In what possible sense? What sort of God would create a universe where the smallest imperfection would lead to "total destruction", barring entering into some bizarre blood pact involving his son? It's very weird. Certainly not moral. All things being equal, I'd sooner accept punishment for my own sins than be party to human sacrifice.

> You seem to think God is just a megalomanic, but what He is is the truth, and without him there is nothing but destruction in your future.

So in the same breath you say he's not a megalomaniac, and simultaneously say that he created a world where every single person will be destroyed unless they obey his wishes, to the smallest detail. Tell me, what sort of being would create that type of world?

> So he's standing at the edge of the cliff waving his arms, screaming for you to change directions, warning you of danger, showing his care. Instead of listening you say, "Who does that guy think he is? He thinks he knows everything. Why should I listen to him. He's just stuck on himself." See, that's not it at all; he knows the danger, and your only hope of survival is to listen to him.

Your attempt to portray God as an innocent bystander fails. He created the cliff. He created it knowing precisely who would fall off it and how. Indeed, he created those people so that they were designed to plummet to their deaths. It's cruel and perverse.

> So if you owed someone $10 million, and another person offered to pay it for you, you'd refuse because it would infringe on your privacy and freedom? Hmm.

I would if I didn't owe it, sure. Particularly if accepting this generous "offer" would further indebt me to someone else. I'd hardly like to wake up one day and hear, "The good news is that you don't owe $10 million anymore. The bad news is that you're now the eternal slave of a vindictive Jewish war god. We weren't totally sure you actually owed the $10 million, since your sins were pretty minor, but we thought we'd play it safe and enslave you anyway. You're welcome!" No, thanks. No disrespect to Jesus, but I'd much rather speak for myself when it comes to those matters.

> See above. It's not "strings," but the facts of the situation. The cliff is ahead. Please change direction.

"Facts" created solely and absolutely by God for this intended purpose. This isn't an unfortunate accident from which God is generously saving us, any more than the bag man for the bank robber is innocently offering to accept your money, while his accomplice's gun is leveled squarely at your head.

That's the whole problem. The Christian wants his God to be a redeemer and a rescuer, but he also wants his God to be all-powerful and all-knowing. These desires are incompatible. One wouldn't be considered a rescuer if one is also the knowing architect of the calamity putting people in danger. One would merely be considered a psychopath.

> Not necessarily. There are some theories out there that God will continue to attempt to reconcile the lost even after death, and that there may be mechanisms for the damned to not spend eternity there, but only an appropriate amount of time fitting what they did on earth.

"Some theories". Not very reassuring.

> But if I were you, I would avoid that situation entirely and make right with God now.

One does not negotiate with terrorists.

> This is the entire message of the Bible. What Adam and Eve lost in the Garden was not access to the Garden, but access to God's presence. God's presence is a theme that runs through the whole Bible. It's what the covenant is all about (all of the covenants), the tabernacle, the Temple, and even Jesus was "God with us."

I'm referring to hell. I'm aware that there are other stories about being separated from God. This general separation does not appear to be what the Bible is referring to with hell. The very fact that they are described as two different things is evidence that they are distinct. Hell can not merely be separation from God, otherwise the world of Adam and Eve would have been hell.

> People aren't sitting around gnashing their teeth now because on earth we are beneficiaries of God's general grace. Rain falls for all of us; we all benefit from the supply of food, the beauty of the environment, and the characteristic of our bodies to self-heal. But in the afterlife when these things are no longer available, it will be a completely different story.

Wait... so we can be "beneficiaries" of "general grace" without worshiping or obeying God? Why accept him or Jesus, then? Why not just go on our merry way?

> "God has not just arbitrarily created a situation of owing Him something and then not giving you a way to pay it. Justice is part of the make-up of existence, and when we sinned we created a veritable imbalance." Do you have any evidence for any of this?

It's theological, not scientific. You wanted to know what Christians believe. This is what the Bible teaches, and so it's part of our theological base. It's not subject to laboratory research.

> Temporarily punishing the innocent is still not just or fair

The scapegoat was released into the wilderness. It's not punishment, but a symbol of removing the sins from the community. So there was nothing "not just or fair" about it.

> What evidence do you have for this, or is this just another empty claim / boldfaced religious lie?

Again, it's a theological teaching of the Bible. I don't what evidence you expect to hear for a theological teaching. I'll assume you've studied philosophy. It's the same thing. When Kierkegaard writes about the teleological suspension of the ethical, you don't say to him, "What evidence do you have? Prove it!" It's philosophical reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

> You say there's a punishment for sin, and it's death, well, everybody already dies, it's perfectly natural...

The death of which the Bible speaks in not the perfectly natural physical death. When God said to Adam and Eve, "On the day you shall eat of it, dying you shall die," he obviously wasn't talking about perfectly natural physical death, because they lived for quite a while longer.

> Is there one deity or not? was Jesus a deity?

I would hope, arguing with Christians as you are, that you have some understanding of the doctrine of the trinity.

> This is not valid logic, it's just human hacking, a bunch of carefully constructed circular errors to get people to accept erroneous reasoning.

Your accusation of human hacking betrays a lack of understanding. All people, including the disciples, Paul, the church fathers, and theologians, have struggled with the doctrine of the trinity. But the fact is that this is how God has revealed Himself, and we have a hard time finding natural analogies that help us understand it. I have heard some that are fairly good, but they all fall short eventually. We accept that light is both a particle and a wave, but that's not valid logic either. For the time we accept that classical physics and quantum mechanics are both true, because both have been proved, and yet they contradict each other. That doesn't mean it's human hacking.

> Depends on what your definition of perfect is.

In this case the definition would be "insusceptible to mistakes, wrong thinking, or wrongdoing." Because God is God, he is not susceptible. Because we are not God, we are inherently not insusceptible.

> Also if the deity can be 3 people, why not more?

Because He is what He is. You asking for an absurdity. The deity can't create more deity, because deity by theological definition is uncreated.

> You make a lot of immense claims about unrealistic things for which you offer little but tall tales.

Unfortunately this is your bias in coming to the conversation. You seem to want scientific evidence for theology, without which you shout "Tall tales!" But there's nothing circular about my reasoning.

> God has not just arbitrarily created a situation of owing Him something and then not giving you a way to pay it. Justice is part of the make-up of existence, and when we sinned we created a veritable imbalance.

Do you have any evidence for any of this? Otherwise, this is just empty claims and perhaps boldfaced lies.

> Scapegoats were temporary measures to alleviate a problem...

Temporarily punishing the innocent is still not just or fair

> What makes the sacrifice effective is that Jesus truly bore the sins of the world

What evidence do you have for this, or is this just another empty claim / boldfaced religious lie? Plenty of people have been pronounced dead and then surprised folks by going on living.

> Not sure what you mean by this... (regarding nature of punishment and nature of Jesus)

You say there's a punishment for sin, and it's death, well, everybody already dies, it's perfectly natural, how convenient, problem solved, no need for religion.

> God didn't sacrifice himself to appease himself. The Son sacrificed Himself, at the will of the Father, to appease the legal demands of sin on humanity.

Is there one deity or not? was Jesus a deity? Is the punishment separation from deity? This is not valid logic, it's just human hacking, a bunch of carefully constructed circular errors to get people to accept erroneous reasoning.

> Again you misunderstand. If the only perfect being is that which is uncreated (viz., God), then any created being is ipso facto less than perfect...

Depends on what your definition of perfect is. Also if the deity can be 3 people, why not more? Perhaps instead of creating imperfect things they could have just split into a nice pantheon of gods and seen how that went. Whoa is the limited deity for lack of imagination...

You make a lot of immense claims about unrealistic things for which you offer little but tall tales. Whatever exactly it is you believe, I suspect you've been coaxed all the way around some circular illogic to arrive back at a beginning to claim the circle perfect.

> Let's imagine a third and more accurate case: someone claims that we have a debt of $1,000,000, passed on to us by an anonymous and wicked ancestor, which they agree to pay for us, on the condition that we worship them and are obedient them for the rest of our lives -- and on the stipulation that if we don't pay, we'll be tortured for eternity by our generous benefactor's father.

This is a severe misunderstanding. It's not that God says, "I'll pay if you worship, and if you don't, I torture you for eternity." Instead, what the Bible teaches is that God knows that your sin is leading you in a path of total destruction, and only recognizing the truth will save you. You seem to think God is just a megalomanic, but what He is is the truth, and without him there is nothing but destruction in your future. So he's standing at the edge of the cliff waving his arms, screaming for you to change directions, warning you of danger, showing his care. Instead of listening you say, "Who does that guy think he is? He thinks he knows everything. Why should I listen to him. He's just stuck on himself." See, that's not it at all; he knows the danger, and your only hope of survival is to listen to him.

> I'd consider it a violation of both privacy and freedom.

So if you owed someone $10 million, and another person offered to pay it for you, you'd refuse because it would infringe on your privacy and freedom? Hmm.

> Even if this were true, the "generosity" of the offer doesn't come without strings, nor is it really "free", since you'll be brutally punished for not making it.

See above. It's not "strings," but the facts of the situation. The cliff is ahead. Please change direction.

Through the pitch-black night, the captain sees a light dead ahead on a collision course with his ship. He sends a signal: "Change your course ten degrees east."

The light signals back: "Change yours, ten degrees west."

Angry, the captain sends: "I'm a Navy captain! Change your course, sir!"

"I'm a seaman, second class," comes the reply, "Change your course, sir."

Now the captain is furious. "I'm a battleship! I'm not changing course!"

There's one last reply. "I'm a lighthouse. Your call."

It's not that there are strings attached, but it's the reality of the situation.

> That's interesting, but isn't the punishment still for eternity? There is no real difference between a "few" blows or "more" blows if the punishment lasts forever.

Not necessarily. There are some theories out there that God will continue to attempt to reconcile the lost even after death, and that there may be mechanisms for the damned to not spend eternity there, but only an appropriate amount of time fitting what they did on earth.

But if I were you, I would avoid that situation entirely and make right with God now.

> Secondly, it doesn't really seem like the Bible is just talking about being separated from God.

This is the entire message of the Bible. What Adam and Eve lost in the Garden was not access to the Garden, but access to God's presence. God's presence is a theme that runs through the whole Bible. It's what the covenant is all about (all of the covenants), the tabernacle, the Temple, and even Jesus was "God with us."

People aren't sitting around gnashing their teeth now because on earth we are beneficiaries of God's general grace. Rain falls for all of us; we all benefit from the supply of food, the beauty of the environment, and the characteristic of our bodies to self-heal. But in the afterlife when these things are no longer available, it will be a completely different story.

> There are different ways of looking at the substitution concept. On the one hand, if someone wants to pay a monetary debt in our place, we're grateful. On another hand, if someone innocent wants to serve a jail sentence for a convicted criminal, we think that's not fair, and rightly so. Jesus' sufferings for us are more like the first rather than the second, according to the Bible.

I disagree. Let's imagine a third and more accurate case: someone claims that we have a debt of $1,000,000, passed on to us by an anonymous and wicked ancestor, which they agree to pay for us, on the condition that we worship them and are obedient them for the rest of our lives -- and on the stipulation that if we don't pay, we'll be tortured for eternity by our generous benefactor's father. But for the moment, let's ignore the fact that this transaction is already sullied by coercion. This might seem like a reasonable transaction if we actually agree that we owe $1,000,000. Almost everyone today would balk at the idea of owing vast sums of money incurred by the actions of unnamed ancestors with whom we have no legal agreements, though. We even laugh at the idea of slave reparations, and some of those debts are well-documented.
If we deny the $1,000,000 as fraudulent, and admit to having only $50 of debt which we actually incurred ourselves, then we would hardly call this a generous offer. We'd call it racket.

> It's fair on two points: The first is that Jesus volunteered to be the substitute. He had every right to make the decision, and he chose to take the punishment for you (Jn. 10.17-18). Doesn't he have a right to be generous towards you?

Not necessarily. I'd consider it a violation of both privacy and freedom.

> The second point would be that Christian Trinitarian theology says that the Son and the Father are one, and so whatever the son does, the father also does. Thus, the father didn't place the punishment on anyone other than himself, so you can't fault him for cruelty. In a courtroom analogy, the judge doesn't throw the punishment on some innocent, objecting bystander, but takes it upon himself. Doesn't he have a right to be generous towards you?

Even if this were true, the "generosity" of the offer doesn't come without strings, nor is it really "free", since you'll be brutally punished for not making it.

> This is incorrect. There are also degrees of punishment in hell; it's not "One Fire Fits All." So also there are degrees of reward in heaven. Not everything gets the same thing. the Bible is very clear that we will be rewarded or punished according to what we have actually done. People can be punished worse or less based on their lives and what they deserve.

That's interesting, but isn't the punishment still for eternity? There is no real difference between a "few" blows or "more" blows if the punishment lasts forever.

> I happen to be convinced hell is not literally fire, but the agony of true separation from God. I say that because fire doesn't have degrees of punishment, but hell does.

This doesn't seem like a very good argument. First of all, there are obviously different degrees of fire (in terms of heat and size), as well as in terms of the extent of their effects. In fact, we even call them first, second, and third "degree" burns.

Secondly, it doesn't really seem like the Bible is just talking about being separated from God. The Greeks and Romans living nextdoor to the Jews and early Christians were "separate" from God, yet I don't think Jesus or any of his disciples would have said that they were living in "agony". Certainly they didn't sit around gnashing their teeth all day. Furthermore, the Bible is very clear about being tormented by fire and that there will be "no rest" from it. That sounds like a pretty far cry from just maintaining the status quo -- a life without God -- which, from my point of view, is perfectly fine.

> Because the wages of sin is death, therefore Jesus' death is exactly related to the crime and the punishment. It's a direct correlation.

This statement makes literally no sense to me. What does Jesus' death have to do with mine? Or my sins, for that matter?